A new 135mm f/2L IS would be a dream all right - albeit sharpness can take a slight hit, maybe a 135mm f/1.4L? Probably they can find a way to let in more light in a longer lens but the lens could look like a longer 85 1.2L and cost too much.

A 135mm f/1.4 would put it in the same class as the 200mm f/2 (100mm objective) and 300mm f/2.8 (107mm objective) both in terms of size and weight. A suggested 135mm f/1.8 is definitely more reasonable in terms of size, weight and price.

True, over the last three decades. Not quite as much over the last decade, and most of Canon's previous generation of lenses are within a decade old.

The EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/2.8, and TS-E 24mm f/3.5 are less than a decade old?

To put numbers behind it, Canon has made 159 different EF/EF-S lens models since 1987. Currently Canon USA lists 68 lenses (I take issue with 5, as they are no longer in production and no longer available new - 300mm f/2.8 IS I, 400mm f/2.8 IS I, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, 15mm Fisheye). Out of the remaining 63 lenses here is how they break down by release date:

0-10 years - 3710-15 years - 1015-20 years - 920+ years - 7

So his statement is correct - 37/63 (59%) are 10 years old or less, which constitutes 'most'

The main reason Canon does anything is in reaction to what the competition does.

Ok...but, how does that explain f/1.2 lenses, the MP-E 65mm, the TS-E 17mm, the 800/5.6 which Nikon is only now apparently getting around to releasing, etc.?

Those are secondary reasons. They have a technical advantage so they push it.

IIRC Nikon cannot offer 1.2 lenses with AF due to the flange distance of the F mount. A drawback in having to support legacy technology.

In terms of lenses Canon has a larger lineup but they only update in reaction to what the competition is doing.

Like say the 135L will probably get a refresh within 24 months while the 200/2.8, 300/4L IS, 400/4 DO 400/5.6L, 70-200/4L, etc will get one 24 months after today. The those lenses are rather unique to Canon.

35/1.4L is a certainty.

It just a matter of time.

Seeming we all know this will happen allows us the opportunity to set aside money for them when they come out.

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.

+1 How do you improve on the 135 f/2? The only meaningful way forward is 135 f/1.8is. It's almost certain to be bigger. But it's unlikely to be such astonishing value as the current lens; it could not sell anywhere near the price of the 135 f/2 which is easily found for under $1k new.

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.

+1 How do you improve on the 135 f/2? The only meaningful way forward is 135 f/1.8is. It's almost certain to be bigger. But it's unlikely to be such astonishing value as the current lens; it could not sell anywhere near the price of the 135 f/2 which is easily found for under $1k new.

-PW

IS possibly. BUT, it would cost close to 2K$ and ... who would dare to sell his/hers own superb existing 135mm copy if Canon were to stop its production. I wouldn't ! In addition 1.8 is too much. I cannot find a real reason as it would skyrocket the cost...

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.

+1 How do you improve on the 135 f/2? The only meaningful way forward is 135 f/1.8is. It's almost certain to be bigger. But it's unlikely to be such astonishing value as the current lens; it could not sell anywhere near the price of the 135 f/2 which is easily found for under $1k new.

-PW

IS possibly. BUT, it would cost close to 2K$ and ... who would dare to sell his/hers own superb existing 135mm copy if Canon were to stop its production. I wouldn't ! In addition 1.8 is too much. I cannot find a real reason as it would skyrocket the cost...

Zeiss already makes a 135 f1.8, adding IS should be straightforward. Its entirely probable and stupendously practical in reach, and speed limited situations.

$2k for a 135/1.8L IS would be fine by me. The 135/1.8 of Sony is $1,800.

Which means Canon with IS would cost around $2.5K not $2K

Now now dont be too hasty. Sony has been historically more expensive than Canikon due to economies of scale.

IS and Series II tend to be double that of non-IS and Series I.

That depends whether the two features will be introduced at the same time or not. IF Canon either gives us IS or 1.8 the price will increase very much and (unfortunately) it will increase again when they will introduce the second feature. If they introduce both features at the same time maybe $2K is possible.

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.

+1 How do you improve on the 135 f/2? The only meaningful way forward is 135 f/1.8is. It's almost certain to be bigger. But it's unlikely to be such astonishing value as the current lens; it could not sell anywhere near the price of the 135 f/2 which is easily found for under $1k new.

-PW

IS possibly. BUT, it would cost close to 2K$ and ... who would dare to sell his/hers own superb existing 135mm copy if Canon were to stop its production. I wouldn't ! In addition 1.8 is too much. I cannot find a real reason as it would skyrocket the cost...

Zeiss already makes a 135 f1.8, adding IS should be straightforward. Its entirely probable and stupendously practical in reach, and speed limited situations.

It'd be around 85L II price territory but I'd be ok with that.

same as long as they dont use the poxy MF focus by wire thing like the 85 has that would anoy me on a lens that costs that much but i'd be super happy for a 135 f1.8 IS